@angdraug many packages does not a good distro make
It is quite trivial to package the things you need if Alpine doesn't already have them (way easier than it is to do the same for Debian!)
@sir Number of packages is a good indicator of both how easy it is to add packages and how much effort you'll have to spend on packaging your dependencies.
There are, of course, other things that make a good distro, e.g. a packaging policy makes the difference between packages that are usable out of the box and glorified tarballs with metadata.
What problem with Debian packaging did Alpine solve?
@angdraug it indicates neither of these things. Debian has been around for A LOT longer than Alpine, and has had a much broader sustained interest. That's all it comes down to. It's not an indication of quality.
The idea that it's easier to make packages for Debian than Alpine because it has more of them is fucking ridiculous. It's easy as pie to make Alpine packages and Debian packaging is an utter nightmare.
Ugh. Don't talk out of your ass.
@sir "Supports lol" indeed. "Has build images based on Debian" is good enough for a slide deck bullet point, maybe even for running "./configure && make" on a helloworld.c. If that's all you're shooting for, bully for you. My definition of "not useless" implies that my build is broken by my own bugs more often than by CI, and that's not been my experience with build.sr.ht so far.
@sir Your absence of self-awareness is hilarious. In reply to my question about the problems you had with Debian packaging, all you had for me was "it's utter nightmare". And now you lecture me about reporting bugs? What, submitting bugfixes (https://lists.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/sr.ht-dev/patches/14217, https://lists.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/sr.ht-dev/patches/14691) wasn't good enough? Can't help but wonder whether your "don't talk out of your ass" was a projection.
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!